ACUERDO A LA LICENCIA
2.2.1.8 VENTAJAS DEL SOFTWARE
A letter of instructions was sent on 2nd January 1839 by the Lords of the Committee of Privy Council for Trade, to the appointed committee to inquire into the number and nature of steam-vessel accidents during the last ten years and the mode of preventing
The Times, September 8, 1837;
The Nautical Magazine and Naval Chronicle, For 1841, (Vol. V), pp. 564-65; H.L., 1839 (181.), p. 69;
the reoccurrence of such accidents. On 29th May 1839 the Report was accomplished by Captain Pringle, R.E., and Josiah Parkes, Esq., Civil Engineer, consisting of 38 pages with 158 pages of appendices.
This Report was compiled together from queries of up to 14 questions sent to engineers, shipowners, Lloyd’s surveyors, coroners, and other persons connected with steam navigation. The questions regarded accidents in general; accidents connected to boilers and coal; the strength of hull, rig, and equipment including boats; overhaul,
repair, and survey; examining accidents; &c. Question no. 8 was:"^^
8.— Are the regulations and signals established in the port of effective for the
prevention of collision between steamers and other craft ?
Additional material came from the Comptroller of H.M. Steam-machinery and Packet-service, from H.M. Customs, from the Committee of Lloyd’s Register of British and Foreign Shipping, and others besides from visits to the ports of Liverpool, Glasgow, Greenock, Leith, Newcastle, Shields, Sunderland, Hull, and London and from having there spoken to engineers, shipbuilders, shipowners, masters. Navy- off icers, &c.^^^
The appendix started with the statements given by persons of the port of Liverpool and first by those connected to the City of Dublin Steam-Packet Company. J.C. Shaw, Engineer and Manager to this Company described the regulations and signals for that port as worthless as there was no universal Rule of the Road and law as to canying lights which had its consequences in continual accidents. A positive law with clear definitions was wanted for carrying lights by steamers and sailing- vessels, the latter hardly shewed any lights at all. American packets never carried any lights in the channels which also resulted in constant accidents."^^
Lieutenant Lowe, R.N., Inspector of emigrant ships, was in favour of three lights and the starboard-helm mle.^^
The River Clyde was under the jurisdiction of Parliamentaiy trustees who
1839 (181.), p. in; Ibid., pp. iii-iv;
49Ibid., p. 45; for the mode of exhibiting lights by the City of Dublin Steam-packel Company see
eaiiier this chapter; Ibid., p. 64;
made the governing regulations for the port of Glasgow and the river.^^ The opinions to lights and collision regulations varied from “excellent” (George Burns, Steam- vessel Owner and Agent in Glasgow) to “very defective” (David Maclver, Agent for Messrs. Thomson & Macconnell, Glasgow). But the need for lighting regulations for sailing-ships was clearly expressed.^^
The answers from the port of Leith stated unanimously that there were no regulations for and at the port of Leith which probably included the Firth of Forth.
William Allen, Commander of the Royal Adelaide between Leith and London,
suggested one bright light at the foremast-head and a red light under each bow.^^ Vice Admiral Sir David Milne, K.C.B., of the London and Edinburgh Steam Company, suggested another lighting system: two lights on the starboard-bow and one light on the larboard-bow. Vessels should pass on the side where two lights were shown. In case of bad look-out on the other vessel blue lights or rockets shall be fired to draw their attention.
The lack of any regulation for the Firth of Forth forced W. Hamilton, Agent for steam-vessels in Edinburgh, to give order to the masters of their vessels to exhibit a light on each yard-arm while going up or down the Forth or Thames.^^
Although there were regulations for the River Humber from 10th November 1836 concerning meeting and crossing courses, lights, &c., there were three different statements of three persons none of which was right, including one answer of a Surveyor to Lloyd’s, Mr. Briham.^^ This was surely not representative but it leads to the question if these regulations were effective and well propagated. There were no penalties imposed for neglecting to follow these rules.
The bulk of the evidence came of course from the Port of London. Three engineers and two of the three surveyors to Lloyd’s expressed the want of established general regulations for lights and sound signals, one engineering company, Messrs. Maudslay, Sons & Field, even demanded them for the whole of the U.K. and for the whole world. Lights for steamers should be made compulsory by fine (N. Middleton,
See chapter on Local River Regulations; H.L., 1839 (181.), pp. 75-81, 84; Ibid., p. 88; Ibid., p. 98; Ibid.; Ibid., pp. 108-09, 116; 97
Surveyor). George Bayley, Surveyor, recommended differently coloured side-lights and, together with P. Courtenay, Surveyor, Mr. Pearce’s lantern which came more and more in general use.^^
There were some single entries for other ports like for Dundee where there was no written regulation but an understanding to starboard the helm when m e e t i n g f o r Newcastle where there were no regulations for the port. Thomas Wooster, Agent for the Shields and Newcastle General Steam Navigation Company, recommended a coloured light;^^ for North Shields: M. Poppelwell, Surveyor, wanted a red light for river vessels going up and a green light for vessels going down-river, both keeping to its starboard side; for Whitehaven: the Whitehaven Steam Navigation Company displayed on their ships three lights: one at the mast-head and one at each bow;^^ for Southampton the helm had to be put a-starboard.^^
16 of the 38 pages of the Report contained accounts of particular accidents by wrecking, foundering, explosions, and fire, those for collisions were given in the appendix, with summarising tables including a review of correspondents’ statements towards lights and collision regulations. Opinions of shipbuilders and owners, engineers, harbour-masters, &c. were summarised together with their suggested measures and followed by a draft of recommended legislative regulations. Those for America, Holland, Belgium, and France were reprinted for comparison before the Report closed with an analysis of 92 accidents from 1817-1839.
Of these 92 incidents, which were derived from newspaper accounts and individuals because of a lack of official records about steam-vessels, 12 were listed as collisions with 66 of 453 lives lost, 62 at one single collision only. It was that of the
Comet and Ayr in the Clyde from want of night signals or neglect of look-out. Forty additional lives were lost according to watermen’s and coroner’s lists during the last three years.^^ This figure of 92 accidents during 22-23 years was of course a gross
under-estimate of the real figure. A quick look into The Times had been enough.
^H .L., 1839 (181.), pp. 118, 127, 131, 140-42;
Ibid., p. 99; were the regulations of 1824 repealed or did they fall into disuse ?; Ibid., p. 104;
“ Ibid., p. 143; Ibid., p. 154; Ibid., pp. 1, 30;
In the summary of the evidence about lights and collision regulations Captain Pringle and Josiah Parkes stressed first of all that nearly all answers to the queries complained of the absence of a generally understood universal Rule of the Road and rules as to lights and night signals which was felt in the loss of lives and the expenses for avoidable repairs. They recollected the amount of money which had to be spent on the repair for vessels of recent collisions besides the loss of other vessels and of lives.^^
They highlighted Captain Denham’s remark that local rules concerning vessels meeting and passing in opposite directions opposed each other, and also the mode of exhibiting lights by the City of Dublin Steam Company.^"^
Another point of great importance was that to sound signals in thick weather when lights could only be seen when the vessels were very near each other. A steam- whistle, being much stronger than the sailing-vessel’s bell or horn, would not only answer this purpose but would also distinguish steamers from other vessels. Inquiries were made with the result that the whistle can be worked by both low and high pressure boilers.^^
The summarised causes of accidents for collisions revealed four causes: the want of an universal code of night signals; the want of a defined and compulsory “rule of the road.”; racing; and carelessness or neglect of look-out. Of all accidents collisions came on the fourth place after wrecks through foundering or imminent peril, after explosions, and after fires.
In a table of steam-vessels’ size, tonnage, and power for the end of the year 1838 it appeared that the total nlimber of vessels in Great Britain and Ireland was 766 including 83 not registered vessels for they were plying within the limits of their port. 484 of these were classed as river-going steamers and small coasters and 282 as large coasters and sea-going ships. In 1837 there were 624 registered vessels and in 1836 546."
Reviewing the correspondent’s information on the subject of collisions Captain Pringle and Josiah Parker drew up a proposal for legislation: the starboard-
1839 (181.), pp. 12-14; ^ Ibid., p. 13; Ibid., p. 14; Ibid., p. 16; Ibid., p. 17; 99
helm rule should be adopted together with the lighting system of the City of Dublin Steam Packet Company. The use of a powerful steam-whistle, bell, or gong should be made compulsory for steam-vessels, and their speed through the water should be defined for fog, thick weather, and crowded waters by night as well as by day. A distinguishing feature between steamers and sailing-vessels and vessels at anchor was also fundamental.^^
This was the second Report on steam-vessel accidents and navigation with recommendations to the avoidance of collisions but so far the most investigative and exhausting in both the evidence given and extent of the Report itself. The part on lights and collisions took up a considerable amount of space and thought and stressed once more the necessity for universal legislation in the shape of an Act of Parliament. Besides the commonly acknowledged rules as those to bearing-up and starboarding the helm there seemed to be a tendency to display three lights in a triangle, one at the mast-head and one at each paddle-box which might not have been screened by purpose but only by the position in which they were placed. It was therefore only logic that this system was recommended by Captain Pringle and Josiah Parker for it worked out by experience to be the best mode of indicating the course to other vessels and so to avoid collisions.
It had been an easy task to make this more and more accepted system of three lights compulsory by enactment or by order of the Admiralty. It is therefore not understandable and in fact outrages that the Government and the Admiralty simply did nothing but ordering one report after another with no consequences following. Instead, some time in 1839 the Admiralty drew up a code of passing rules for men-of- war steam-ships only which ordered a port to port passing rule for rivers, channels, and open waters and contradicted the widely established starboard to starboard passing mle:^^
When ships on different tacks must pass near each other, the ship on THE STARBOARD TACK IS
ALWAYS TO KEEP THE WIND, and that on the larboard tack to pass to the leeward, bearing up in
time for that purpose.
When STEAM VESSELS not under sail, but on different courses, must unavoidably or
necessarily cross so near that by continuing their respective courses there would be risk of coming in collision, they are always to pass ON t h e LARBOARD s id eo fe a c h OTHER.
H.L., 1839 (181.), p. 27;
B.C. and H.L., 1895 [C.—7908.-1.], p. 278;
A STEAM VESSEL passing another in a narrow channel must always leave the vessel she is
passing ON THE LARBOARD HAND.
It shall take another seven respectively nine years before the Steam Navigation Act of 1846^^ and an Admiralty order were passed.
™ 9 & 10 Viet., CAP. C. An Act for the Regulation of Steam Navigation, and for requiring Sea
going Vessels to cany Boats. [28th August 1846.];